Unpacking the Pixel: A first look at Google’s expensive new Chromebook

Up close and personal with the Chromebook Pixel's pixels.

The Chromebooks we usually see around these parts can be summed up in two words: competent and cheap. This nicely sums up our reviews of both Samsung's $249 ARM Chromebook and Acer's $199 C7. Google's recently announced Chromebook Pixel goes against that grain: it's a high-quality machine with a gorgeous 2560×1700 display, but you'll pay a hefty $1,299 (or $1,449, for the LTE version) for the privilege of owning one.

Our full review of the computer—and, with it, our continuing thoughts on whether this machine makes any sense—is in the works, but in the meantime we took the Pixel out of its box to give it a good once-over.

The Chromebook Pixel's box is simple to the point of being nondescript.

Andrew Cunningham

The side of the box with the multicolored stripe on it is actually a magnetic flap, which lifts up to reveal the hardware inside.

Andrew Cunningham

The box contains only the essentials: the Chromebook Pixel itself, a quick getting-started guide, a USB-to-Ethernet dongle, and a power adapter.

Andrew Cunningham

The Chromebook Pixel uses a 3:2 aspect ratio for its 12.85-inch 2560×1700 screen—this isn't quite the boxy 4:3 aspect ratio used by the laptops of yesteryear, but it feels like a bit of a throwback.

Andrew Cunningham

The Chromebook Pixel's 239 PPI screen has the same pluses and minuses as devices like the Nexus 10 or the Retina Display iPads and MacBook Pros—text is clear and crisp, but unless images have been optimized for high-density displays (as the Ars header image here has been), they'll look a little blurry.

Andrew Cunningham

We've never been able to say this about a Chromebook before, but this screen has excellent color and viewing angles.

Andrew Cunningham

The Chromebook's backlit keyboard is comfortably sized and has decent travel; the multitouch trackpad seems OK so far, but there may yet be some deficiencies to uncover.

Andrew Cunningham

The Pixel keeps it simple with respect to branding, stickers, and logos—there's one Chrome logo above the keyboard...

Andrew Cunningham

...and one on the laptop's slightly protruding hinge.

Even the Pixel's ports eschew unnecessary labels. On the left side, you've got a power jack, mini-DisplayPort connector, two USB 2.0 ports, and a headphone jack.

Andrew Cunningham

The right side of the laptop houses its SD card reader and, for the 4G-enabled models, the SIM card tray.

Andrew Cunningham

The underside of the laptop is even plainer—only some rubber feet and regulatory logos here.

Andrew Cunningham

The Pixel is all clean lines and hard edges. The lid is held to the bottom of the laptop with magnets, as is customary these days.

Andrew Cunningham

The Pixel has uniform thickness throughout its body, which makes it seem a little boxy compared to something that tapers (the MacBook Air pictured is one prominent example, but it's common in many Ultrabooks).

Andrew Cunningham

The light on the lid of the Pixel needs to be seen in action to be truly appreciated. At boot, its blue, red, yellow, and green lights match the multicolored stripe on the box. When the laptop is in use, the light turns blue and pulsates in a manner very reminiscent of Battlestar Galactica's Cylons.

The Chromebook Pixel's 239 PPI screen has the same pluses and minuses as devices like the Nexus 10 or the Retina Display iPads and MacBook Pros—text is clear and crisp, but unless images have been optimized for high-density displays, they'll look a little blurry.

For the record, just to give that shot some context, the Ars logo on the site has been 'retina optimized' which is why it looks sharp there.

I'm not terribly savvy ehen it comes to LCD viewing angles, but side to side is one issue on a laptop I've never had, it is the vertical orientation of the laptop panel that has always been my issue. My current laptop, for instance, looks great head on. If I were to be in a dark room, blacks and dark greys will glow slightly if the screen is pointed even a few degrees to far up. I am not sure if that is normal, but I would definitely prefer that sort of measurement rather than the X axis. All that does is make it possible for folks sitting at another table at the coffee shop to see your bank account statement.

Pointless machine, in my opinion. Pitching it to pro photographers etc without having access to relevant software for eg processing of RAW format images simply does not make sense. There is simply a dissonance between its intended market and the requirements it would need to be successful in that segment.

Just don't understand the pricing for this. It's a high cost for an OS that's not really a production OS

Might as well get a tablet with a nice keyboard for much cheaper

Don't think of it as a $1300 computer. Think of it as 1 TB of data storage on Google Drive for 3 years at a discounted rate, with a free toy thrown in. The 400GB-to-1TB tier of storage for Google Drive is normally priced at $50 per month, and 3 years of that (included with this machine) would cost you $1800 alone.

If you already needed that much space of online, off-site, accessible storage already, then the value proposition for this looks a lot better than if you think of it as a $1300 device with some service thrown in on the side.

This is called reverse Dog-fooding.... Google is trying very hard to get their own employees to 100% embrace their tools, by building a device for consumers to use that is up to the needs of their own employees they are in essence reverse dog-fooding Getting consumers to use what they use

I think it is very interesting. Those that say Chrome OS is useless most likely have not used it. With full NaCl support there is nothing different from this OS and any other OS. You can run full applications from this just like any other computer. The advantage for a developer is they can target ARM and x86 very easily and their app will work in windows/linux/mac/chromeOS to me this is a really interesting way of handling an OS. In the end you blur the line between an OS and an application platform. Chrome is the application platform regardless of OS.

If you already needed that much space of online, off-site, accessible storage already, then the value proposition for this looks a lot better than if you think of it as a $1300 device with some service thrown in on the side.

I scoffed yesterday. But now I hear that it's a relatively trivial matter to get Linux dual booting on it. Chrome OS is where the future is, and the safety of Ubuntu when you have to work locally. It's actually a better OS option IMO vs. Windows 8 or OSX.

If you already needed that much space of online, off-site, accessible storage already, then the value proposition for this looks a lot better than if you think of it as a $1300 device with some service thrown in on the side.

Right, but who in the hell needs/pays for that kind of cloud storage?

I've got a couple hundred GB in audio alone (I have the original CDs and albums for most of them, but not all of them; since I dropped my eMusic account, I wouldn't be able to replace the music I got from them easily in the event of a couple poorly-time hardware failures). There's all of the photos I've taken over the years since I got my first digital camera (there's another 60+ GB). There's the important documents (scans of legal documents, like the title to my car) and a lot of stuff I worked on at home. There are backups of the eBooks and downloaded software I've purchased (some of which is a real hassle to have replaced). There's a gigabyte or so of personal email from my ISP-provided address (which I still use). There are papers I've written that I don't want to lose.

Basically, it's not hard for me to find a legitimate use for that much data storage. Sure, it's a bit more expensive than some other online data storage services out there, but I trust Google to not lose my data a lot more than I trust (e.g.) Kim Dotcom.

Just don't understand the pricing for this. It's a high cost for an OS that's not really a production OS

Might as well get a tablet with a nice keyboard for much cheaper

Don't think of it as a $1300 computer. Think of it as 1 TB of data storage on Google Drive for 3 years at a discounted rate, with a free toy thrown in. The 400GB-to-1TB tier of storage for Google Drive is normally priced at $50 per month, and 3 years of that (included with this machine) would cost you $1800 alone.

Are you certain that $50/mo is going to be the price in three years? Even two years? With the way storage prices drop and with increasing competition for cloud services, betting that you're saving yourself money on a technology-related product that you might purchase 24-36 months from now sounds pretty sketchy.

Basically, it's not hard for me to find a legitimate use for that much data storage. Sure, it's a bit more expensive than some other online data storage services out there, but I trust Google to not lose my data a lot more than I trust (e.g.) Kim Dotcom.

So you're going to commit to $600 per year indefinitely just to make that information available via "the cloud"? I think I'd look first to solutions like a Synology NAS which can store you data locally, but also make it available remotely through your Internet connection. Coupled with a $50 or so per year backup plan, it sounds like a much more cost effective solution for storage space.

I see Google has fully committed to the "I have no idea what I'm doing, let's throw things at the wall and see what sticks" business plan.

They know exactly what they are doing. Just like they build their own servers, they want all their employees to start using their own [google] laptops/hardware for development and their core work. This just makes sense - they saw an opportunity to let the consumer market also use what they have an option to use in house. In the end it is a good business decision because having a consumer line of their internal products only lowers the cost of these devices.

It does not matter how much traction these devices bring to chrome os...

In the end as I stated above Chrome OS truly changes everything when it comes to application development and computer usage in general. The NaCl implementation on the ARM and x86 gives devs full application support, and that support spans all operating systems (mac, windows, linux, chromeOS) as they also run in chrome. This makes it possible to take your entire work environment with you on any machine just by launching Chrome, or logging into a Chrome laptop.

Just don't understand the pricing for this. It's a high cost for an OS that's not really a production OS

Might as well get a tablet with a nice keyboard for much cheaper

Don't think of it as a $1300 computer. Think of it as 1 TB of data storage on Google Drive for 3 years at a discounted rate, with a free toy thrown in. The 400GB-to-1TB tier of storage for Google Drive is normally priced at $50 per month, and 3 years of that (included with this machine) would cost you $1800 alone.

Are you certain that $50/mo is going to be the price in three years? Even two years? With the way storage prices drop and with increasing competition for cloud services, betting that you're saving yourself money on a technology-related product that you might purchase 24-36 months from now sounds pretty sketchy.

OK, then. Let's play "what if" on that.

Let's presume Google maintains that price for a year. $600.Then they drop the price to, say, $30 per month the next year. $360.After that, maybe they decide to go wild and do $10 a month for the year after that. $120.

All told, you would have paid $1080 for those three years, and not had this nifty little toy to play with. ...Or...You pay the $1300 up front, you get that theoretical $1080 in service, and marginal cost for the Chromebook just worked out to $220.

Still not so bad a deal, IMO.

If you look at hardware alone, this is not a great buy, and I would question most people who go for it. When you look at the practical services you get along with it, it doesn't look nearly so bad. Still not perfect for a lot of people, but certainly not bad for a lot of others.

If you already needed that much space of online, off-site, accessible storage already, then the value proposition for this looks a lot better than if you think of it as a $1300 device with some service thrown in on the side.

Right, but who in the hell needs/pays for that kind of cloud storage?

I've got a couple hundred GB in audio alone (I have the original CDs and albums for most of them, but not all of them; since I dropped my eMusic account, I wouldn't be able to replace the music I got from them easily in the event of a couple poorly-time hardware failures). There's all of the photos I've taken over the years since I got my first digital camera (there's another 60+ GB). There's the important documents (scans of legal documents, like the title to my car) and a lot of stuff I worked on at home. There are backups of the eBooks and downloaded software I've purchased (some of which is a real hassle to have replaced). There's a gigabyte or so of personal email from my ISP-provided address (which I still use). There are papers I've written that I don't want to lose.

Basically, it's not hard for me to find a legitimate use for that much data storage. Sure, it's a bit more expensive than some other online data storage services out there, but I trust Google to not lose my data a lot more than I trust (e.g.) Kim Dotcom.

I think you're conflating cloud storage of stuff you might dig into every day or every week with cloud storage of long-term backups. It's a bit of a pain to have to sort the one category from the other, but it helps you be more organized.

Maybe there's a business plan there--if you don't access your data for 3 months, it goes into "cold storage" which is cheaper but not immediately accessible.

In the end as I stated above Chrome OS truly changes everything when it comes to application development and computer usage in general. The NaCl implementation on the ARM and x86 gives devs full application support, and that support spans all operating systems (mac, windows, linux, chromeOS) as they also run in chrome. This makes it possible to take your entire work environment with you on any machine just by launching Chrome, or logging into a Chrome laptop.

That's not exactly a new goal, others such as Zync (UI toolkit) and more recently Java all had similar goals with almost similar results. What many seem to forget is people have different preferences which is why they choose a Macintosh, Windows, Ubuntu or BSD based solutions. Another example, the Chrome browser uses it own print dialog in lieu of the native print dialog - that type of mentally has brought me very close to dumping Chrome.

Luckily for us all Google can take thier bazillion dollars and create what ever crazy hardware they want without taking a hit financially. The Pixel, Android Phones, The Nexus Q, Google TV, Google Glass, Self Driving Cars, Off shore wind farms. Just for entertainment value I'm glad Google is throwing money into these projects.

Google makes me feel like I'm in the future. They're like an ecentric rich uncle for the tech community.

If you already needed that much space of online, off-site, accessible storage already, then the value proposition for this looks a lot better than if you think of it as a $1300 device with some service thrown in on the side.

Right, but who in the hell needs/pays for that kind of cloud storage?

I've got a couple hundred GB in audio alone (I have the original CDs and albums for most of them, but not all of them; since I dropped my eMusic account, I wouldn't be able to replace the music I got from them easily in the event of a couple poorly-time hardware failures). There's all of the photos I've taken over the years since I got my first digital camera (there's another 60+ GB). There's the important documents (scans of legal documents, like the title to my car) and a lot of stuff I worked on at home. There are backups of the eBooks and downloaded software I've purchased (some of which is a real hassle to have replaced). There's a gigabyte or so of personal email from my ISP-provided address (which I still use). There are papers I've written that I don't want to lose.

Basically, it's not hard for me to find a legitimate use for that much data storage. Sure, it's a bit more expensive than some other online data storage services out there, but I trust Google to not lose my data a lot more than I trust (e.g.) Kim Dotcom.

I think you're conflating cloud storage of stuff you might dig into every day or every week with cloud storage of long-term backups. It's a bit of a pain to have to sort the one category from the other, but it helps you be more organized.

Maybe there's a business plan there--if you don't access your data for 3 months, it goes into "cold storage" which is cheaper but not immediately accessible.

It already exists. It's called Amazon Glacier. It's $.01 per gig per month and there is a 3-5 hour retrieval time.